PatM04
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 9:41 am

737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 11:12 am

What do you think of it? It doesn't even look like a 737 to me. It so long! It almost looks like a 767 but thinner. I kinda like the look, what do you think?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Knutson

 
skihigh2002
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 11:17 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 11:14 am

It looks like a fat 757!  Smile

Chris
 
coboeing777
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 10:21 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 11:20 am

you mean a squashed 757.....

I really don't think its looks much longer than an -800. I saw one on the ramp and if I hadn't looked at the reg #, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was a 900. Still looks cool nonetheless.

BTW, is it just me or did they raise the nose gear on it? It looked a little higher when I saw it in person.
 
Cap'n Dan
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2001 5:49 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 11:30 am

Is it ETOPS certified? As I've posted in the past, I think a plane like this would be perfect for thin transatlantic routes. If CO can use a 757, why not a 737?
 
Gregg
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2000 12:49 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:25 pm

737-900.... Looks like a money maker. Not too much more fuel burn the 737-800, and CO can either put a few more seats in, or preferably the same amount of seats with more room, then use the -900 on cross country flights that don't justify bigger a/c.
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3568
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:36 pm

The bigger/longer/heaver they get, the shorter the range. I don't believe the 739 could fly that far. Even if it can, to provide the meal service(s) for such journeys would require twice the galley space, hence reducing the number of Human Beings (read:$$$) to be transported at any one time. I haven't a clue as to how the cost structure for the 739 compares to the 752, but.....
Working very hard to Fly Right....
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3568
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:40 pm

Oops, I was refering to transatlantic flights, not transcons....
Working very hard to Fly Right....
 
NiteRider30
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 4:34 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:41 pm

I have a friend who flew on the 737-900 on Alaska Airlines from SEA to ANC a couple months back, and he really liked the plane. Obviously it was a very new and fresh plane, but from what I understand, it was very comfortable in there, compared to the older 737s.  Big thumbs up

NiteRider30
 
The747Man
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 7:14 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 12:42 pm

Looks like the typical Boeing aircraft....................EXELLENT!
 
chrisair
Posts: 1771
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:10 pm

We call it the "poor man's 757" But it's a hell of a lot better than a 757!! BTW-It's not ETOPS...I don't think Alaska has plans on making it ETOPS.

 
concorde1518
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu May 17, 2001 12:02 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:22 pm

I like it. I always liked the -400 and -800 best, because I thought that the -200, -500, and in some shots the -300 were a little too chubby. The length makes it look good.
 
bombayhog
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 11:34 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:54 pm

I think it's too chubby, along with the whole 737 series. Doesn't really look graceful or powerful at all to me. I guess the -800 and -900 aren't as bad as the others, but on the whole, I'm not a fan of any 737. Unfortunately, the world seems to disagree with me.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

/gwl
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:03 pm

Having both seen and flown on a 737-900, it looks very much like a NG 737 to me. For me, it takes a 'good look' to notice the difference between a 738 (without winglets) and a 739.

As for the range of the 739, its full-payload range is less than 2,600 miles, as Alaska Airlines has stated that the type cannot be used on its ANC-ORD non-stop service in either direction unless flown with reduced payload. Alaska's DCA-SEA service (a flight of approximately 2,350 miles), when operated by 739 equipment, could not be flown non-stop westbound in most weather conditions without payload restrictions.
 
NiteRider30
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 4:34 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:09 pm

I wonder then if Alaska Airlines has any plans to get aircraft with longer range to fly those routes? Obviously they aren't in a financial position to be buying airplanes right now, and neither is any other airline, but they've gotta be thinking about it.

NiteRider30
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:40 pm

The 737-700 has a longer range than the 737-900. AL flew the -700 on the ANC-ORD route last summer if memory serves.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: 737-900

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:53 pm

From post of NiteRider30: I wonder then if Alaska Airlines has any plans to get aircraft with longer range to fly those routes?

Alaska Airlines has a growing fleet of 737-790s that are used on its longest routes such as ANC-ORD, ANC-LAX, SEA-IAD, and soon, LAX-CUN. The type is very capable of covering these routes non-stop in both directions with full payload. If/when Alaska is given the go-ahead to resume SEA-DCA non-stop flights, the route will be operated by 737-790 equipment in place of the 737-990 used before service to DCA was halted by the events of 9/11. The 737-790 can also fly SEA-DCA non-stop in both directions with maximum payload.

Another Alaska route to which the 737-790 is especially well-suited is SNA-SEA and SNA-PDX non-stops. It is the only type in Alaska's fleet that can meet SNA's stringent noise restrictions in all weather conditions when operating flights of these distances without sacrificing payload. The 737-400s were restricted to as little as half their passenger capacity on some days when the type was used on SNA-SEA non-stop services.
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:20 am

The 73G is Alaska's ideal "long-haul" aircraft in terms of operational efficiency. The aircraft can fly about 700 miles further than the 739, and is configured with 52 fewer seats than the 73G. When you take into consideration that Alaska is a new player in the long-haul market and that the long-haul routes AS serves are not especially high volume, you can see why the capacity of the 73G is perfect.

For Alaska, the 737-900 is better suited to its medium distance, high volume routes such as SEA-ANC and SEA-LAX. Alaska's goal with the 737-900 was to help compensate for inflated demand at peak times of the day by adding more seats, rather than more flights. This could be especially useful at an airport like LAX, PHX, SAN or SFO, where Alaska has limited gate space.

The 737-900 is well suited to the ANC-SEA route because of its cargo capacity (which amounts to even more than that of the 757-200, if you can believe it). So during the peak season, you can not only carry a lot of tourists, but also a lot of fish in the cargo hold.
 
chrisair
Posts: 1771
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 8:27 am

Alaska only operated the -900 to Washington because the other airlines threw a fit of having a "small" plane fly there. The 757 (TWA) operated with those slots earlier, so therefore, the other airlines suggested (demanded) that the 739 be the only type used on that route. Of course, since AS has those slots, they will use whatever they want on that route. I wouldn't be suprised to see a 73G fill in every now and then if the loads are light. The payload restriction on the -900 out of DCA is slight, only 10% (15-20% if the weather is hot/humid)

BTW-Anchoridge-LA was operated with a M80. The 73G flew San Fran-Anchoridge.

YYZ-Who is "AL" and to my knowledge only Alaska flies Anchoridge-Chicago. The Alaska 2 letter code is "AS"

 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:21 pm

I wouldn't be suprised to see a 73G fill in every now and then if the loads are light. The payload restriction on the -900 out of DCA is slight, only 10% (15-20% if the weather is hot/humid)

BTW-Anchoridge-LA was operated with a M80. The 73G flew San Fran-Anchoridge.


The SEA-IAD flight is now being operated with a 73G, and the SEA-DCA flight (if/when it is re-started) will also be operated with a 73G due to new restrictions on DCA ops.

Both LAX-ANC and SFO-ANC are now 73G routes (although SFO-ANC is seasonal).
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:40 pm

Today I noticed for the first time a somewhat surprising route to be flown by Alaska with 739 equipment on at least one daily frequency during the upcoming Winter season: LAX-SJD.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:08 pm

Chrisair, sorry....by AL I meant AS.

 Smile

Neil
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
N400QX
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: 737-900

Fri Oct 12, 2001 4:00 pm

>Obviously they aren't in a financial position to be buying airplanes right now, and neither is any other airline, but they've gotta be thinking about it.

Well, you'd be surprised. Alaska Air Group likes to keep its ducks in a row and not keep much of a debt. They weren't hit too hard by the attack... virtually no flight reductions, nor layoffs. Haven't heard of them cancelling or putting any orders on hold.


Anyway, I flew the Alaska 739 in August-- I must say, it is a fine aircraft... another great product from the great folks in Renton. When I boarded, well... lol-- i looked down the aisle and thought 757. Its a few rows short of a 752, but still. The ride was great, very comfortable (TONS of room!)... can't wait to fly it again.

N305AS
(that is if I hadn't just switched to N400QX recently....lol)


N400QX
God bless America
Long live Alaska Air Group
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: 737-900

Sat Oct 13, 2001 12:57 am

From post of N400QX: Haven't heard of them (Alaska Air Group) cancelling or putting any (aircraft) orders on hold.

To my knowledge this is correct. The only adjustment made with regard to new aircraft deliveries has been a swap of delivery positions where Alaska will receive 73Gs that were scheduled for later delivery than a like number of 739s. The 739s will then be delivered at the later dates for which the 73Gs had been scheduled.

What will happen with Horizon remains to be seen. Their short-haul flights (especially SEA-PDX) have been hit especially hard by the changes implemented after 9/11.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ADent, ASFlyer, Baidu [Spider], BreninTW, Francoflier, ha763, hooverman, ikolkyo, Jetstar315, MAH4546, mildaiv, Phen, quiet1, rj777 and 233 guests